Not gonna call it "green"

As usually Kimota94 has a post I can use as fodder for another. This time it was on the environment and I'm just not gonna use the word "green" to describe things that help the environment. The term is loaded with hypocrisy and I realize that most of my ideas in this regard fall into two categories: efficiency and self-sufficiency.

These ideas cover so much ground that they are more than environmentalism. Environmentalism implies actively helping the environment - picture sci-fi machines scrubbing the atmosphere (you know, blimps with brushes polishing the clouds and such). This is not what popular environmentalism is however - it is "things you can do to help the environment". Being more efficient is really what is implied (and needed).

We are a wasteful people - wasting energy and effort all over the place. If you could place a cost on what it takes to remove the impact of some of your own actions, you'd gladly exchange the bill for a little extra effort. I know I'm pontificating here - I am not very good at being efficient, but it is still an important message. The old cliches of "use every part of the buffalo" are applicable here. We don't wring every last drop out of the things we buy and use because it is cheap to replace. Take electricity for example - at 5.5 cents a KW/h it is cheaper in Ontario than many parts of North America, which is cheaper than the rest of the world. We leave lights on, appliances running, computers churning away at nothing - for what purpose?

Self-sufficiency is the other ideal I put forth. By being as efficient as possible, each person (or family, household - whatever) can approach self-sufficiency. This is the ultimate ideal in our culture - the culture of the one, the me, the almighty self. But with each passing year we become more dependent on complex systems that are beyond our capacity to maintain by our selves. Can you imagine generating all the electricity you use in your own home yourself? If that doesn't scare you, look carefully at your hydro bill. Hundreds of KW/h's per month - if you had to run a generator to produce that, what would it cost? Could you even do it? Unlikely (rhetorical questions are always the easiest to answer). It becomes more possible if you use only what you absolutely need - what is comfortable to use.

Combining these ideals is something I aspire to, although my progress is very very slow. Posing the efficiency questions in a selfish way - being more efficient saves me money - makes it easier to swallow. Just like in grade school - one classmate was having trouble answering a word problem on the board, until the teacher reformulated it to use dollars and cents instead of simple integers. If I reach some magic efficiency point, I believe I'll be able to generate much of my own energy. Collect or generate. That's the dream.

Not a very articulate description, but it is something. I'll have to continue to expound on the environment in the future. For now, I guess I should worry that these ephemeral words will have to be stored somewhere, using up energy that I could have saved somehow. Guess I should try and limit that footprint...